User Score
7.2 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 28 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 28
  2. Negative: 3 out of 28

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

  1. BobG.
    Mar 6, 2009
    3
    Wow, this movie was bad - any episode of the wire - even without any backstory, is better than this !! The first 10 min is back to back swearing, seemingly to make up for zero action ( in fact the whole film fails in that regard ). The plot is thin and contrived. The acting and direction are "OK". It doesn't have an ending. This is so far away from the Departed I wish it had never ... "arrived". If you thought that was bad; watch this. Expand
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  2. JohnH
    Feb 14, 2009
    5
    I didn't like this movie. Edward Norton's performance was good but I found the movie to move too slowly.
    • 1 of 1 users said yes
  3. R.Lopez
    Feb 5, 2009
    10
    After decades of macho dramas, The Shield, and other ''gritty'' TV police shows, cop movies today rarely have the understated oomph that guys like Sidney Lumet brought to them in the '70s and '80s. But Pride and Glory is an old-style exception, a very well acted and emotionally gripping corrupt-cop family drama that feels like the kind of serious, slow-burn NYPD movie nobody makes anymore. Edward Norton is in top form as Ray, a burned-out detective whose investigation into the deaths of four cops leads him to suspect his brother-in-law, Officer Jimmy Egan (Colin Farrell, also terrific). The climactic bar brawl and street beating unfortunately feel too stock, but otherwise co-writer/ director Gavin O'Connor puts a new shine on familiar material. I very highly recommended this film. Expand
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  4. JaredC.
    Oct 23, 2008
    10
    This years "We Own the Night," but also this years most astounding cop drama.
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  5. QuackH.
    Jan 19, 2009
    9
    This is a great and intense movie, with an astounding storyline. One of the critic's review sounded like the idiot didn't even watch the movie, and trying to get by. He said the actor Edward Norton has an unexplained scar, when in the movie, it definitely did tell you why. Stupid and ignorant critics! Leave your crappy reviews in your garbage bin.
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  6. JohnM.
    Nov 7, 2008
    9
    Held my interest from start to end. Great acting performances from all major characters.
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  7. mmcc
    Oct 22, 2008
    9
    Good thriller-movie ! Great actors and perfect suspance ! Exellent !!!
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  8. TDKinDallas
    Oct 26, 2008
    6
    It was a good movie, but nothing special. A lot of things happen that just don't make any sense. I still enjoyed the ride, but I am not recommending that you spend $10 a head to go see it......wait for DVD.
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  9. ChadS.
    Oct 28, 2008
    6
    Denzel Washington's historical Best Actor win for his portrayal of a bad cop in Antoine Fuqua's "Training Day" at the 2002 Academy Awards was met with tempered excitement in some quarters. These well-wishers were disappointed that Washington couldn't have followed in the footsteps of Sidney Poitier with a role more along the lines of Malcolm X.(in which Washington lost the Oscar in 1992 to Al Pacino for his role as a "hoo-ha('ing)" blind man in Martin Brest's "Scent of a Woman"), or Dr. Virgil Tibbs(Poitier's 1967 Oscar-winning role from Norman Jewison's "In the Heat of the Night"), than the gangbanger with a badge who would leave his unformed partner in the ghetto for dead. But give Washington credit, when the "St. Elsewhere" alumnist put his screen image at risk, he went all out. Alonzo was one bad mutha*****. Thankfully, the filmmaker let Washington explore all the nuances of this one dimension, the bad mutha***** dimension, instead of fortifying the rogue cop with redeeming characteristics to cajole the audience into complicity, by having them sympathize with the antagonist's flaws. In other words, bad mutha*****s are human beings, too. But there can be only one Martin Scorsese. And "Pride and Glory" is not "Cape Fear"(Scorsese's reworking of the 1962 J. Lee Thompson original); it's also not "Good Fellas" in blue. Alonzo was a gangsta. Jimmy Egan(Colin Farrell) is a gangsta, too. But Jimmy has a wife and child; together, hangin' in the family crib, they look like the very model of domestic bliss(conversely, Alonzo's girl looks like a "homegirl" on blow). The kindness that Jimmy bestows on his family is supposed to absorb whatever illegal shennanigans he orchestrates on the job. But the good-hearted nurse and the child who goes to sleep with racecars dotted all over his blanket, can't absorb, and finally, redeem, a husband/father who'd punch a woman square in the face, hard, then threaten her infant with a piping hot iron, close. This sort of gratuitous act is ugly, but at least it would be honest, if Jimmy didn't show contrition soon after. Farrell is obviously thinking about his screen image. In the dialogue-less final scene, Ray Tierney(Edward Norton) become a Scorsese-like protagonist, but the expression is incomplete without Jimmy's presence. Ray never quite gets the chance to be the hero before his code of ethics is compromised by family pressure. Expand
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  10. JayL.
    Oct 29, 2008
    10
    My wife and were blown back in our seats by the energy of the cast and the flow of this movie. Norton, Farrell and Voight were as good as we've seen them. A real star in the rough was Emmerich. I highly recommend this movie to those who like strong drama.
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  11. DavidS
    Oct 31, 2008
    8
    One of the better movies we have seen in a while. The acting was really good, the story kept us engaged. Would recommend.
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  12. JayH.
    Jan 26, 2009
    6
    Brutal, well acted and edited. Convincingly cast with believable performances. The gritty setting is a plus. Good pace. Still, I never really cared about most of the characters so I never got deeply involved in the film.
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  13. Sep 19, 2010
    7
    The hailed heroism and glory are things that are ranked high along with the badge for the Tierney family, a well respected circle of father (Jon Voight) and son's (Edward Norton and Noah Emmerich) police officers. They are known for their good deeds, but when a police corruption scandal is discovered by Ray (Edward Norton) things start to heat up. The signs point toward brother in law Jimmy (Colin Farrell) being a loose cannon. Soon the tension is high between Farrell and Norton which ends up to be a very heated, fist clenched, raging rivalry between the two. The family's true code of ethics is put into play as Norton struggles to do what is right. -All of the acting was very genuine and very immersing. Especially the acting from Farrell as he shows us a very angry, above the law cop (The baby and the iron part was very tense), he fleshed out a nice, spiteful bastard. -Overall 'Pride and Glory' was a good cop, crime drama that was pretty well written, with some slight predictability which is made up for by good cast interaction and an overall good main character carried properly by Norton. The story was good enough to keep me watching and the realism was the icing on the cake. Expand
  14. Oct 17, 2010
    7
    The compelling reason to see this movie is Edward Norton. There are other fine casting choices, including Jon Voigt, just about all of the female actors and ethnic participants, some of whom are non-actors, but very real. The story is no better than a typical Third Watch episode, but better than a standard NYPD story. Why it took so long to make is a reflection of the producer's lack of focus, or maybe too much focus. Colin Ferrel looks totally out of place and makes very little contribution to his role. Some of the plot is downright ridiculous and the ending is stupid. But, there is enough to draw an interested if limited viewer. There is lots of f-bombs, which seem totally out of place, and just made up to be made up. There is a very sensitive scene with the Chief's cancer ridden wife. The relationships among the cops makes one ask, would that be allowed? To be honest, it is not a good movie. But, because of Norton and a few other gritty character performances, it has merit. The DVD is a "making of" and is generally so self-centred on the director himself, as if there was nothing else going on in the world. Skip it. Expand
  15. Jan 26, 2011
    8
    This movie was shot so realistically that you actually felt like you were in the middle of Washington Heights watching this all play-out. Edward Norton is one of those rare actors that even though he seems out of place in a gritty film like this somehow he makes it work. The cast was exceptional and made you hate and feel bad for them all at the same time. My only two beefs would be that it is one in a billion of corrupt cop movies which weighs a bit on it (though it is one of the better ones around) and the language is a bit excessive, I get that it adds to the realism, but that doesn't mean that I have to enjoy it. Expand
Metascore

Mixed or average reviews - based on 29 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 29
  2. Negative: 7 out of 29
  1. The stark drama harkens back to Sidney Lumet classics like "Serpico" and "Prince of the City"-filmmaking that went after an unadorned, jagged realism, with acting to match.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    50
    Feels like a film that should have been made at least 25 years ago. Or made as a period piece. Heavy, doom-laden and, unfortunately, entirely predictable.
  3. Reviewed by: Robert Wilonsky
    20
    How ironic that a movie filled with police officers should end up feeling like a hostage situation.